Great news! I hope this is even cheaper to extract than shale gas. The whole world will have cheap clean fuel, and people the world over will have a greatly enhanced lifesyle. Of course conservation should be used, and best practices in extraction. Improvements in scavenging heat form internal combustion engines deserves a priority in research efforts. Heat can be transformed into electricity, and the electricity can be stored and used.

Successful? In the sense of successfully flushing climate down the toilet, I’d have to agree.Methane hydrates from the ocean floor are at least as old as the last ice age, and deeper ones probably go back to the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Just like fossil fuels, they are sequestered carbon that, when liberated, will change our climate forever (I’m taking liberties with the word, but if you want to try to put a prettier face on “at least 100,000 years”, have at it).Insanity.

Bob, I am interested in really helping people, not patting myself on the back for being a super green extremist. Manmade global warming is by no means a proven fact, and even if it were, life must go on. I have commented that best practices and energy conservation are important. That is because people like you, are all too willing to demonize practical people who disagree with your extreme views. Climate cycles have been going on since the earth was created. Here are some of my links: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

Ronald, the science of global warming is not far behind the science of the Earth being round – about as factual as it gets. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on global warming, exactly 24 denied it had an anthropogenic componentThat speaks volumes about whose view is extreme here. If you disagree that it’s worth preserving the world as we know it (and most of the species alive today) for a quick prosperity fix, then that’s a value judgement that I disagree with, but so be it. If you agree, and are truly interested in helping people, you would take the time to educate yourself.

Bob, you need to learn to be less reactionary, and a more discriminating reader. I said manmade global warming. Anyway, the trend may be turning toward a new ice age, if it hasn’t already. No one really knows for sure.

I am a little bit concerned with this development. To the extent that Natural Gas is not leaked into the environment and is being used to displace Coal, it could be a good thing.However I am concerned that:1) We won’t be able to mine Methane Hydrates effectively while keeping raw methane from leaking into the atmosphere in quantities that are deliterious.2) Methane Should not be used as a substitute for non-Carbon energy. I am worried that tat is exactly what will happen.Methane hydrates should not be seen as a solution to Energy delivery. It could play a part in displacing Coal fired plants while further research and development is being done to arrive at a better long term solution which for me means Fourth Generation Nuclear power like LFTR.

Replacing coal, non farmed wood, date palm plantations etc. are an important goal. I would also add replacing any desire for nuclear generation. I will be dead when all that is accomplished. I am now 67, and that would take over thirty years. I would also like to replace dirty diesel and a lot of gasoline. My hope is that gasoline and diesel will be forced to come down in price to about one third of their present price. Watch this trend. I just saw one analysts prediction that we will soon be seeing $75 oil. It has been way beyond that in price. LNG is making it possible to replace dirty diesel fuel used in ships, and will do the same in trains, over time. It can also be used in purpose built aircraft and greatly lower fuel costs. See Boeing’s “Sugar Freeze” plan: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3Aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3A00f49124-7f6b-4fec-9bdb-fae7095ba3b1 This is a very exciting time in energy. Highly efficient natural gas turbines can fully support wind, solar, hydro, and other intermittent energy sources. We are highly blessed. Remember the “energy crisis”.

I’m afraid to say you should brace yourself forgreat dissapointment. Safe and advanced fourth generation nuclear power gneration technology is well on the way and you, your children, and your great grand children will enjoy the power that it will produce for centuries to come.If you want to know more Google China and Fourth Generation Nuclear power.

0

| - ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

C Goto

March 14, 2013 23:45

Its a good step for Japan I guess the production method is patentable?. It is a good option for other countries also to buy Japanese associated “production” equipment. However; what I find most odd about Japans energy policy is its near vaccum in developing geo-thermal energy, as it seems to be an ideal location to tap staggering ammounts of energy (the USA has Yellowstone).

Why is “extracting” the methane presented as such a big deal? All it takes is to allow the ice that contains the methane to melt. We’re not talking any kind of innovation here.Methane hydrates are an incredibly effective sink for carbon. Given that we so desparately need to find ways to sequester CO2, why would we want to release the carbon from such an effective sink? The only way this isn’t absolute insanity on the order of a human race death wish would be to only harvest that methane that is already escaping from the permafrost and sea beds and burning that. Better for that to be burned to CO2 than remain in the atmosphere as methane.Not only is there the risk that methane will leak out in the process of its capture, but there is also a risk of destabilizing the hydrate deposits resulting in huge amounts of carbon being released.

0

| - ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

gyuliuscaesar

March 20, 2013 19:41

@ Bob, Adopting the conclusions of others whom you deem ‘some of the smartest people alive’ is of little value here. Science has become the tool of the capitalists and the social engineers; exaggerations and ignorance of contrary facts lead people to preordained conclusions, regardless of the disclaimers. Science is to be interpreted, collated, examined and falsified by those people seeking to hold an informed opinion. To adopt someone else’s opinion because of reverence for that person’s intellectual ability misses the mark. That aside, let’s look at what the Royal Society says about the issue of Global Warming.”Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850.” From ‘Climate Change; A Summary of the Science’, 2010. Line 21http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf The NOAA concurs. So, in the past 160 years the increase in global surface temperatures is .8 of one degree. I am not alarmed. The fact that since 1840 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from .028 of 1% of the atmosphere to .040 of 1% of the total doesn’t strike me with the horror that it strikes others either. What hard numbers do you have that would increase my level of alarm?